1 CHED MEMORANDUM ORDER No. Series of 2012 SUBJECT: POLICY-STANDARD TO ENHANCE QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) IN PHILIPPINE HIGHER EDUCATION THROUGH AN OUTCOMES- BASED AND TYPOLOGY-BASED QA In accordance with pertinent provisions in the 1987 Philippine Constitution which assert that the state “shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels…” (Article XIV Section 1); “establish, maintain, and support a complete, adequate, and integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the people and society” (Article XIV Section 2); and “exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions” while recognizing the complementary roles of private and public institutions (Article XIV Section 4)—provisions that are reiterated in the Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 and Republic Act (R.A.7722) otherwise known as the Higher Education Act of 1994 which state that “The State shall protect, foster and promote the right of all citizens to affordable quality education at all levels” (Section 2); “its coverage shall be both public and private institutions of higher education as well as degree granting programs in all post-secondary education institutions, public and private” (Section 3); and that the Commission “shall set minimum standards for programs and institutions of higher learning” (Section 8d); In furtherance of an ongoing paradigm shift to learning competency based standards that underlie the provisions of CHED Memorandum Order Number 2 Series of 2011; and Pursuant to the Commission en Banc Resolution No. 168-2012 dated 16 July 2012, This policy-standard, which applies to private and public Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the country, is issued to enhance the quality assurance system of Philippine higher education through learning competency based standards and an outcomes-based system of quality assurance that is differentiated by type of HEI. ARTICLE I. RATIONALE FOR ENHANCING QA Section 1. Philippine higher education is mandated to contribute to building a quality nation capable of transcending the social, political, economic, cultural and ethical issues that constrain the country’s human development, productivity and global competitiveness. Section 2. This mandate translates to multiple missions for the Philippine higher education system: To produce thoughtful graduates imbued with 1) values reflective of a humanist orientation (e.g., fundamental respect for others as human beings with intrinsic rights, cultural rootedness, an avocation to serve); 2) analytical and problem solving skills; 3) the ability to think through the ethical and social implications of a given course of action; and 4) the competency to learn continuously throughout
31
Embed
CHED MEMORANDUM ORDER POLICY-STANDARD TO … Relations/Executive Cirle... · Section 4)—provisions that are reiterated in the Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 and Republic Act (R.A.7722)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
CHED MEMORANDUM ORDER
No.
Series of 2012
SUBJECT: POLICY-STANDARD TO ENHANCE QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) IN
PHILIPPINE HIGHER EDUCATION THROUGH AN OUTCOMES-
BASED AND TYPOLOGY-BASED QA
In accordance with pertinent provisions in the 1987 Philippine Constitution which assert
that the state “shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all
levels…” (Article XIV Section 1); “establish, maintain, and support a complete, adequate, and
integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the people and society” (Article XIV
Section 2); and “exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions”
while recognizing the complementary roles of private and public institutions (Article XIV
Section 4)—provisions that are reiterated in the Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 and Republic Act
(R.A.7722) otherwise known as the Higher Education Act of 1994 which state that “The State
shall protect, foster and promote the right of all citizens to affordable quality education at all
levels” (Section 2); “its coverage shall be both public and private institutions of higher education
as well as degree granting programs in all post-secondary education institutions, public and
private” (Section 3); and that the Commission “shall set minimum standards for programs and
institutions of higher learning” (Section 8d);
In furtherance of an ongoing paradigm shift to learning competency based standards that
underlie the provisions of CHED Memorandum Order Number 2 Series of 2011; and
Pursuant to the Commission en Banc Resolution No. 168-2012 dated 16 July 2012,
This policy-standard, which applies to private and public Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs) in the country, is issued to enhance the quality assurance system of Philippine higher
education through learning competency based standards and an outcomes-based system of
quality assurance that is differentiated by type of HEI.
ARTICLE I.
RATIONALE FOR ENHANCING QA
Section 1. Philippine higher education is mandated to contribute to building a quality nation
capable of transcending the social, political, economic, cultural and ethical issues that constrain
the country’s human development, productivity and global competitiveness.
Section 2. This mandate translates to multiple missions for the Philippine higher education
system:
To produce thoughtful graduates imbued with 1) values reflective of a humanist
orientation (e.g., fundamental respect for others as human beings with intrinsic
rights, cultural rootedness, an avocation to serve); 2) analytical and problem
solving skills; 3) the ability to think through the ethical and social implications of
a given course of action; and 4) the competency to learn continuously throughout
2
life—that will enable them to live meaningfully in a complex, rapidly changing
and globalized world while engaging the nation’s development issues and
concerns;
To produce graduates with high levels of academic, thinking, behavioral, and
technical skills/competencies that are aligned with national academic and industry
standards and needs and international standards, when applicable;
To provide focused support to the research required for technological innovation,
economic growth and global competitiveness, on the one hand, and for crafting
the country’s strategic directions and policies, on the other; and
To help improve the quality of human life of Filipinos, respond effectively to
changing societal needs and conditions; and provide solutions to problems at the
local community, regional and national levels.
Section 3. The fulfilment of this mission entails a critical mass of diverse HEIs offering quality
programs that meet national standards, and international standards for disciplines/professions
(e.g., engineering; information technology and computing; maritime education; accounting;
nursing) with such widely accepted standard.
Section 4. The importance of quality and quality assurance is highlighted by the urgent need to
move significant populations of Filipinos out of poverty and to address local, regional and
national development concerns by educating quality leaders, thinkers, planners, researchers,
technological innovators, entrepreneurs, and the much-needed work force to launch the national
economy.
Section 5. The focus on quality and quality assurance is further underscored by the following:
Research findings suggesting that the lack of a critical pool of graduates with the
necessary thinking, technical and behavioural competencies are among the factors
constraining the re-launching of the Philippine manufacturing sector and the
achievement of the full potentials of the service sector;
the reality of an ASEAN community by 2015 which will facilitate the free flow of
qualified labor in the region and either open up opportunities for graduates of
Philippine HEIs or threaten their employment even in their own country;
the commitment of the Philippine government to the evolving efforts to recognize
and develop a system of comparable qualifications, degrees, and diplomas across
the Asia-Pacific region under the auspices of the UNESCO; and
The acceptance of internationally-agreed-upon frameworks and mechanisms for
the global practice of professions.
3
ARTICLE II
QUALITY ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK
Section 6. CHED defines quality as the alignment and consistency of the learning environment
with the institution’s vision, mission, and goals demonstrated by exceptional learning and service
outcomes and the development of a culture of quality. This definition highlights three
perspectives of quality:
Quality as “fitness for purpose”, which is generally used by international bodies
for assessment and accreditation, requires the translation of the institution’s
vision, mission, and goals into its learning outcomes, programs, and systems;
Quality as “exceptional” means either being distinctive; exceeding very high
standards; or conformance to standards based on a system of comparability using
criteria and ratings; The third characteristic underlies CHED’s definition of
“exceptional”; and
Quality as “developing a culture of quality” is the transformational dimension of
the CHED notion of quality.
Section 7. Quality Assurance (QA) for CHED does not mean merely specifying the standards or
specifications against which to measure or control quality. Rather, QA is about ensuring that
there are mechanisms, procedures and processes in place to ensure that the desired quality,
however defined and measured, is delivered.
Section 8. Any internal QA system begins with the HEI’s identity and enters a quality cycle of
planning, implementation, review, and enhancement. The plan-do-check-act cycle or the Deming
Cycle (Annex 1) is applied to the HEI’s capacity 1) to translate vision, mission, and goals
(VMG) into desired learning outcomes; 2) to establish the proper learning environment
(implementation of teaching-learning systems as well as support processes and procedures); 3) to
review against performance indicators and standards defined in the assessment system; and 4) to
enhance programs and systems. The cycle continues as the HEI develops into a mature
institution.
Section 9. QA can be carried out with the help of external agencies like CHED and the
accrediting bodies. The role of CHED is to oversee a rational and cohesive system that promotes
quality according to the typology of HEIs. This recognizes that different types of HEIs have
different requirements in terms of the qualifications and corresponding desired competencies of
their graduates, their programs, the qualifications of their faculty, their learning resources and
support structures, and the nature of their linkages and outreach activities.
Section 10. The overall CHED approach to QA is developmental, with the goal of helping the
HEI develop a culture of quality. CHED will work with institutions to assist them in
strengthening their management of academic and administrative processes so that they are better
able to achieve their quality goals and educational objectives. Where there are serious
weaknesses or failures to comply with conditions attached to permits or recognitions, CHED will
expect remedial action to be taken, and will use its powers in relation to such shortcomings as
appropriate.
4
ARTICLE III
RATIONALE FOR ADOPTING COMPETENCY-BASED LEARNING STANDARDS
AND OUTCOMES-BASED QA MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Section 11. The changing realities spurred by globalization underscore the shift in contemporary
international education discourse from education to lifelong learning, and from education as
transmission of expert knowledge to education as building learner competencies—including
learning how to learn. This shift is more than a mere change of semantics. When UNESCO’s
Faure Report was written in 1976, the goal of (lifelong) education was expressed as “developing
humane individuals and communities in the face of rapid change.” By 1996, this goal was
updated by the Delors Report to take into account the forces of competition, cooperation and
solidarity. The goal of lifelong learning since 1996 has, thus, focused on “retraining and learning
new skills/competencies that would enable individuals to cope with the demands of a rapidly
changing workplace” and a complex, interdependent world1.
Section 12. Learning throughout life is the key in the globalized world of the 21st century to help
individuals “adapt to the evolving requirements of the labor market” and better master “the
changing time-frames and rhythms of individual existence.” UNESCO’s 1996 Delors Report
assert that lifelong learning “must constitute a continuous process of forming whole beings—
their knowledge, attitudes, as well as the critical faculty and ability to act. It should enable
people to develop awareness of themselves and their environment and encourage them to play
their social role and work in the community”.
Section 13. CHED is committed to developing competency-based learning standards that comply
with existing international standards when applicable (e.g. Outcomes-Based Education for fields
like engineering and maritime education) to achieve quality and enable a more effective
integration of the intellectual discipline, ethos and values associated with liberal education.
Section 14: CHED is committed to developing and implementing an outcomes-based approach
to QA monitoring and evaluation because it has the potential to greatly increase both the
effectiveness of the QA system, and the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of higher
education. Mature evaluation systems are based upon outcomes, looking particularly into the
intended, implemented, and achieved learning outcomes.
Section 15. While CHED adopts an outcomes-based approach to monitoring and evaluation,
specific inputs (e.g., qualified teachers; laboratories for relevant desiciplines) and processes
remain important, as they create the environment and shape the learning experience that is
made available to students.
Section 16. CHED adopts two different approaches to outcomes-based evaluation of programs
and of institutions:
1 Medel-Anonuevo, C et al (2001). Revisiting Lifelong Learning for the 21
st Century. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute of
Education.
5
A direct assessment of educational outcomes, with evaluation of the individual programs
that lead to those outcomes. In this approach, the program outcomes are largely measured
against the policies, standards, and guidelines of the discipline.
An audit of the quality systems of an institution, to determine whether these are
sufficiently robust and effective to ensure that all programs are well designed and deliver
appropriate outcomes. Such an audit will not normally make direct judgments on
academic programs, but it will consider program-level evidence to the extent necessary to
establish that institutional systems are functioning properly. This approach thus takes into
consideration the vision, mission, and goals of the HEI.
ARTICLE IV
RATIONALE FOR A TYPOLOGY-BASED QA
Section 17. The notion of quality as fitness for purpose and the adoption of an outcomes-based
QA framework presuppose quality goals that are anchored to the individual HEIs’ vision and
mission statements. Since HEIs define their institutions’ vision and mission in response to the
particularities of local or regional needs and opportunities, and in consideration of specific
institutional strengths and weaknesses, the quality goals of individual HEIs necessarily differ
from each other. Thus, if Philippine HEIs are true to their institutional vision and mission
statements, they are likely to identify unique and different attributes and quality outcomes.
Likewise, HEIs with similar institutional vision and mission statements may have similar and
overlapping attributes and quality outcomes.
Section 18: In order to enhance quality assurance and improve the higher education system, the
Commission has to change its one-size-fits-all QA system. The existing one-size-fits-all QA of
CHED, which is based on the QA for universities, imposes a common set of quality indicators
for all Philippine HEIs regardless of their mission. Thus, institutions are compelled to direct their
QA efforts towards meeting CHED quality indicators that are not aligned with their quality
outcomes, which prevent them from improving the quality of Philippine education as a whole.
Among the consequences of the existing QA system are the following:
The one-size-fits-all QA system creates inefficiencies within HEIs as they are, in
effect, being required to channel limited resources to quality outcomes that may
be irrelevant for their mission and context. For the higher education sector, these
inefficiencies are multiplied by the number of HEI who pursue the common QA
metrics of CHED, which were meant for universities;
It reinforces a penchant for university status that results in a crisis of purpose,
with HEIs “falling short of being what they could be, and, in the process, not only
deprive society of substantial intellectual services, but also diminish the vitality of
higher learning”2;
It results in the lack of focused support for knowledge production in the country’s
universities. This, in turn, redounds to the missed opportunities to support the
2 Boyer (1990:55) Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
6
development of the Philippine innovation system and the search for solutions to
the country’s underdevelopment; and
It presumes that academic excellence is achievable only by universities. This
reinforces education inflation, a condition where employers here and abroad
accept the presumed hierarchy of Philippine HEIs and uncritically use a university
diploma as a screen for recruiting Filipinos for jobs whose competency
requirements may be equally, if not better served, by graduates of other types of
HEIs.
Section 19. The benefits to the higher education community of a good typology include:
The establishment of more appropriate QA standards/mechanisms and
development interventions for specific types of HEIs;
Clearer focus on each type of HEI’s role in the context of national development
goals, enhancing their relevance; and
Increased internal efficiency as HEIs within each type are given the leeway to
focus their internal resources on the core functions of the type.
Section 20. For CHED and other concerned agencies, differentiating among types of HEIs
would:
Provide a more rational monitoring and evaluation system for quality assurance
purposes;
Rationalize support and incentives for HEIs based on mandate, functions, and
operations for each type;
Allow for more intensive intervention and development programs for priority
areas targeted for each type; and
Rationalize the number and distribution of different types of HEIs for the entire
country, region, province etc.; thus improving the relevance and efficiency of the
system as a whole.
ARTICLE V
ADOPTION OF A HORIZONTAL TYPOLOGY OF HEIS FOR QA
Section 21. For purposes of quality assurance, CHED adopts both a horizontal typology based
on the functional differentiation of HEIs vis-à-vis their service to the nation, and a vertical
typology based on quality measures within each horizontal type.
Section 22. CHED’s horizontal typology is sensitive to the various functions, organizational
profiles and constraints of existing HEIs in the Philippines. Each type is distinguished on the
basis of a transparent set of distinguishing features and measurable indicators relevant to national
development goals. In particular, HEIs may be differentiated functionally along 1) the
qualifications and corresponding competencies of their graduates; 2) the nature of the degree
programs offered; 3) the qualifications of faculty members; 4) the types of available learning
resources and support structures available; and 5) the nature of linkages and community outreach
activities.
Section 23. The horizontal typology is made up of three types of HEIs that are differentiated
along the variables in Article V Section 22.
7
Section 23.1. Professional Institutions contribute to nation building by providing
educational experiences to develop technical knowledge and skills at the graduate and
undergraduate levels, which lead to professional practice, e.g., Engineering, Medicine, Law,
IT, Management, Teacher Education, Maritime Education). Professional Institutions develop
adults who will have the technical and practical know-how to staff the various professional
sectors that are required to sustain the economic and social development of the country and
the rest of the world, as well as to contribute to innovation in their respective areas. Given the
nature of the Philippine economy and the competencies that are needed to make it more
competitive, as well as the current trends in the labor market, the country needs a good
number of high quality professional institutions.
In order to attain its mandate of developing technical knowledge and skills that lead to
professional practice, Professional Institutions should have
Full-time faculty members who have the relevant degrees, as well as professional
licenses and/or professional experience in the subject areas they handle;
Degree programs in professional fields that develop graduates with specialized skills;
Learning resources and support structures that are appropriate for developing
professional knowledge and skills, including laboratories, practicum sites or
internship programs, linkages with the relevant professional sectors, etc.;
Sustained program linkages with relevant industries, professional groups, and
organizations that support the professional development programs; and
Outreach programs involving all students in social-development oriented experiences
that allow them to develop the service orientation in their professions.
Section 23.2. Colleges contribute to nation building by providing educational experiences
to develop adults who have the thinking, problem solving, decision-making,
communication, technical, and social skills to participate in various types of employment,
development activities and public discourses, particularly in response to the needs of the
communities they serve.
In order to attain its mandate, Colleges should have
Full time permanent faculty members who have the relevant graduate degrees and/or
experience in the subject areas they handle;
Degree programs characterized by a core curriculum that holistically develops
thinking, problem solving, decision-making, communication, technical, and social
skills;
Learning resources and support structures that are appropriate for developing
knowledge and skills in the specific natural science, social science, humanities, and
professional disciplines offered by the college, including laboratories, books and
journals, etc.;
Links with the community that would ensure the development of relevant academic
and extension programs as well as the application of their learning outcomes; and
8
Outreach programs involving students in social-development oriented experiences
that allow them to contextualize their knowledge within actual social and human
experiences.
Section 23.3. Universities contribute to nation building by providing highly specialized
educational experiences to train experts in the various technical and disciplinal areas and
by emphasizing the development of new knowledge and skills through research and
development. The focus on developing new knowledge is emphasized from the basic
post-secondary (i.e., baccalaureate) academic programs through the doctoral programs;
thus, a research orientation is emphasized in the Bachelor, Master’s and doctoral degree
programs. Universities contribute to nation building by producing experts, knowledge,
and technological innovations that can be resources for long-term development processes
in a globalized context.
In order to attain its mandate, Universities should have
Faculty members with advanced (masters and doctoral) degrees in their areas of
specialization, and who participate in research and development activities in their
respective disciplines as evidenced by refereed publications, and other scholarly
outputs;
A comprehensive range of degree programs in all levels, from basic post-secondary to
doctoral programs;
Viable research programs in specific (disciplinal and multidisciplinary) areas of study
that produce new knowledge as evidenced by refereed publications, citations,
inventions and patents, etc.;
Comprehensive learning resources and support structures (e.g., libraries, practicum
laboratories, relevant educational resources, and linkages with the relevant disciplinal
and professional sectors) to allow students to explore basic, advanced, and even
cutting edge knowledge in a wide range of disciplines or professions;
Links with other research institutions in various parts of the world that would ensure
that the research activities of the university are functioning at the current global
standards; and
Outreach activities that allow the students, faculty, and research staff to apply the new
knowledge they generate to address specific social development problems, broadly
defined.
ARTICLE VI
OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE HORIZONTAL TYPOLOGY OF HEIs
Section 24. The unique political economic realities of Philippine higher education reform and the
results of three rounds of CHED stakeholder consultations on typology-based QA (Annex 2)
make it necessary to operationalize the proposed horizontal typology within a moving targets
framework. This is in order to galvanize the country’s community of higher education
stakeholders to pursue the reform. Once the change process has commenced and quality
9
assurance systems have taken root in a critical mass of Philippine HEIs, significantly higher
normative targets will be implemented within a five year period to further raise quality standards
to the level comparable to the academic norms for higher education in the Asia-Pacific region.
Section 25. For purposes of developing the typology, CHED, upon the recommendation of its
Technical Panels, broadened the notion of profession-oriented practices beyond those regulated
by the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) to cover programs with direct (tangible,
observable) application of frameworks and skills in future practice. The Task Force adopted the
recommendations of the Technical Panels for the classification of programs within their
respective disciplinal jurisdiction. These “professional” programs include unlicensed professions
like Journalism, Broadcast Communications, Management, and Information Technology, which
are associated with communities of practice that are guided by a code of ethics.
Section 26. In operationalizing the functional classification of HEIs along the horizontal
typology, it is important to take note of the following points:
HEIs, regardless of type, may offer a combination of “professional” and “liberal arts”
programs subject to compliance with relevant CHED policies;
HEIs, regardless of type, may offer either undergraduate or graduate programs or a
combination of both programs subject to compliance with relevant CHED policies;
All HEIs are expected to do research. However, research may take different forms
depending on the type of scholarship that underlies it—e.g. scholarship of discovery;
scholarship of integration; scholarship of application; and the scholarship of teaching.
Thus, even if HEIs have some units or faculty members engaged in the scholarship of
discovery, their functional classification in the horizontal typology ought to reflect their
core mission if such discovery-oriented scholarship is not their main mandate.
Nevertheless, the research done in HEIs regardless of type will figure in the vertical
typology;
Similarly, all HEIs are expected to develop programs that are relevant to their respective
local, regional or national communities/publics (e.g. extension programs). However, the
relative weight of these programs in the horizontal classification of HEIs will depend on
their core mission. These programs will likewise figure in the vertical typology.
The operational criteria for each of the HEI types highlight a combination of features
along the variables in Article 5 Section 22 that reflect the core mission or function of the
HEI vis-à-vis its contribution to the nation. Thus, for the sole purpose of classifying HEIs
horizontally and not for determining their level of quality, each operational criterion need
not necessarily have a corresponding operationalization for the other HEI types. For
example, universities may have the same level of enrollment in the various professional
areas or the same number of professional programs as professional institutes. However,
for purposes of horizontal classification, indicators of graduate education and the
production of new knowledge—generically referred to as research in subsequent sections
of this CMO—are the distinguishing features of universities.
All HEIs are expected to produce ethical students with high levels of academic, thinking,
behavioral and technical skills/competencies. However, the distinguishing feature of
10
colleges is the core curriculum in their degree programs that enhances the development of
these competencies in the service of their significant communities.
Section 27. The operational criteria for each of the HEI types are as follows:
Section 27.1. Professional Institutions are operationally defined as follows:
1. At least 70% of the enrollment (graduate and undergraduate levels) is in degree
programs in the various professional areas (e.g., Engineering, Health, Medicine, Law,